The Secretary of State doesn’t seem to think the US should lead on climate change.

Rex Tillerson, until very recently the CEO of the world’s largest private oil company and a close chum of Russian President Vladimir Putin, is now the US secretary of state. This is not some ham-handed satire or lurid dystopian novel. It’s real life.

This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.

…

What does Tillerson think about climate change?

Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.

Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier — they do not support serious policy. But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.

At his hearing, Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism. Usually it works; very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change, and lukewarmism has very nice-sounding inch-deep answers.

The IPCC admits climate sensitivity, the amount of warming to be expected if CO2 is doubled, might be as low as 1.5C. For the sake of argument, lets assume a climate sensitivity of 1.5C / doubling – the minimum sensitivity estimate which the IPCC considers to be acceptable.

NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm – around 2.5x pre-industrial CO2 levels of 260ppm – 280ppm.

We’ve already had around 1C of global warming since pre-industrial times, give or take, without any noticeable climate “disasters”. An extra 0.9C on top of current global temperatures doesn’t seem such a big deal.

Of course, the 1.5C / doubling is equilibrium climate sensitivity. If the Earth takes several centuries to achieve equilibrium, and equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5C / doubling, we won’t even see an additional 0.9C by the year 2100.

As for what happens after the year 2100 – does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?

My point is, being a lukewarmer like Tillerson is completely within the bounds of IPCC science.

Yet Vox have treated Tillerson’s lukewarmer views as if they are utterly unacceptable. In rejecting the legitimacy of being a Lukewarmer, Vox are as out of step with IPCC science as any climate skeptic.

Know thy enemy. This is the same David Roberts from Vox who attempted to pin a 17 year old unsupportable talking point characterization to Trump’s EPA transition team leader Myron Ebell. I detailed that wipeout here: http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=4638

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

She supports a new economic system, one which we can name “Figueresism”. In it she gets to keep a cushy governmental position that pays her well and allows her to indulge her dreams of power and prestige. She will be paid to fly around the world to exotic locations, stay in luxury resorts and travel in chauffeured limousines. Of course the masses will be taxed, restricted and impoverished, but hey! You know…omelettes, broken eggs, etc.

So how about giving us the extreme high slope and the extreme low slope out of those 102 IPCC CMIP-5 runs to go with that average.

In what way is that red curve “The Average” ??

Is it a run in which every parameter that is in the model is given the average value for that parameter as given in the specification of the model.

For example extreme temperature values observed on earth (weather/climate wise) is -94 to +60 deg. C So average is -17 deg. C (based on the max/min thermometer strategy).

Taking an average can be useful when you are repeating an experimental measurement of what purports to be some fixed value, and you want to get what you believe (on faith) is a more accurate likely value than any individual measurement. Of course that presumes some sort of normal distribution of errors; and normal distributions aren’t all that normal in practice. Unknown systematic errors plague most experimental observations.

Other than that; the computation of the average value of the members of a finite data set of finite real numbers, is simply a numerical origami exercise.
It works equally well on a data set of numbers that are actually calculable from a closed form mathematical formula (e.g y=exp(-1/x^2) ) or for a data set in which no two numbers have any relationship of any kind whatsoever; such as the numbers in this morning’s issue of the New York Times.
It always yields an exact answer since all set members are exactly known and they are finite in number and magnitude.
But the resulting “average” or ANY other statistical computational result has no meaning whatsoever other than that endowed by the definition of the algorithm, and it conveys no more information than was in the original set of numbers (which might be no information at all).

So show us the range of spread for these 102 golden IPCC runs, that are such earth shattering discoveries.

no, thats meaningless … look them up yourself if you care … the modelers claim to be able to model a “global” average temp. … fine, if a avg is good enough for them then as average of their model runs is good enough for us … :)

“102 golden runs..” that alone tells us that they don’t have a clue, except to waste our and many others precious tax dollars. Sure several independent runs makes business sense, but when the results vary considerably, it is time to get back to basics and sort out the integrity of the assumptions and”calculations” ,not run with the same nonsense 100 more times! Personally I don’t believe the science/physics/thermodynamics of the climate is sufficiently well known that any valid computer model predicting decades in the future is even possible. As an Engineer, I have reviewed many computer models mostly in the field of solid mechanics and CFD and understand even these better defined models are difficult to get close to reality. No responsible engineer depends on these computer models without independent verification hopefully real data, obviously many climate scientists believe they have no immediate consequences except to ruin the world economy. .

It doesn’t matter. You would come to the same conclusion no matter how you view the data. There are a number of people who have completed this comparison in a number of different ways. The vast majority of climate models overstate the projected temperature. I’ve actually read scientific reports that support global warming with conclusions like “You can’t say with 95% confidence that the models are wrong.” (You would think they would try to prove that the models are right.)

most will say things like, “but you’re using the wrong temperature data” or “They use the wrong starting point”. Judith Curry discusses those reservations here:

“We demonstrate this fact with our comparison of the observed warming rate to that of the range of climate model-predicted warming rates for all periods from 1951 ending with the most recent available data. In our AGU presentation, we included the observations of the global average surface temperature compiled by the UK’s Hadley Center. The Hadley Centre compilation has long been preferred by the IPCC.”

ATheoK — I’m not sure what you’re implying. The graph comes from Roy Spencer (there are a number of these graphs.) My point was that it does not matter if you use the average curve or plot all 90 or 102 computer model projections. I pointed out that some people consider these graphs as misleading. Judith Curry gives her take on the subject where she illustrates a number of the ways to remove those criticisms with the same conclusions.

Yes, “serious policy” is ambiguous in that it means different things to folks of different ideologies and prioritization. I happen to think that Mr. Trump will replace the fanatic inspired, self-conflicting, agenda serving policies with serious and sane policy, inspired by the people whose contributions to the private sector have benefitted society, rather than living on the backs of the hoards.

Seriously. The only people who read Vox, let alone believe anything they say, are blue-nosed progs from the deep blue bubble; it’s their “safe space.” The fewer clicks these propaganda mills get, the better.

It wouldn’t occur to me to try to recite the skeptical view point as if it were some sort
of catechism. Doesn’t that seem at all presumptuous? I’m a skeptic and I have a different
take on things. I’d go so far as to suppose others do too. For one, I think the “trace gas” argument
is not a good one. The physics are correct as far as they go. Arguments based on what
you think are just “common sense,” are often anything but.

Amazing that the left has now reached the point that all religious fanatics reach sooner or later, the one in which they say “ALL WHO DO NOT SWEAR A SOLEMN OATH TO OUR GOD MUST BE BURNED!!!”

And they will have creeds and confessions and apologia which all must be acknowledged and worshiped, so that they can be sure that no sneaky petes are trying to slip through their grasp without being totally sincere. That’s the tools the old Inquisition used to root out the crypto-jews in imperial Spain, after all. Torquemada could have been a writer for Vox.

Incidentally, the Inquisition was about enforcing Catholic orthodoxy from those who converted to Catholicism from Judaism but most importantly from ISLAM. After spending 800 years and the lives of tens of thousands of knights to rid Hispania of Islam the Inquisition was designed to regulate the process for rooting out stealth-jihadis (rather than have crazed mobs do it).

For its time the Inquisition was designed to be more humane than the alternatives, while defending Christendom from the lingering effects of the First Great Jihad which destroyed the Ancient World and ushered in the Dark Ages (the Dark Ages did not start with the fall of Rome, as is commonly believed, but with the advent of Arab Imperialism which destroyed the civilizations of the Levant and North Africa and eventually morphed into the fabricated Submission ideology, which is called “Islam” in Arabic). Note, we’re now in the Third Great Jihad, the Second involved the Ottoman attempts to fulfill Koran 9:29 and subjugate Europe under Sharia and the Islamic political order.

Since we like to be precise and investigate the true nature of the climate I thought some of you might like to gain a more accurate perspective on history too, starting with modern distortions about the Inquisition and how it came about – as a way of detecting the stealth jihadis which remained after the Spanish Reconquista.

Climate skeptics don’t deny that climate changes – they just don’t believe it is caused by CO2. Firstly, 95% of all CO2 emitted each year is natural – earth itself emits that much CO2 on an annual bases. Thus the warmers would have us believe that the 5% that is human created is what is driving the climate. How utterly stupid is that??? I should really believe that 5% of a 0.01% trace gas has climate implications? Yes, I am skeptical of that. I know climate changes, always has, always will. No skepticism there. But the IPCC doesn’t study natural causes – they have one and only one charter: identify the MAN-CAUSED climate changes. CO2 is their last life ring – The IPCC is not a scientific organization, it is a political one. Its very name proves that: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I’ve seen this 95% number debunked on both sides. So what’s the truth of it? Ignoring carbon sinks and supposed carbon loops and carbon equilibrium, is there an objective list of the top gross CO2 emitters? From what I have seen this 95% number is fiercely debunked on the warming side. It’s hard to see where the truth is on this issue.

It wouldn’t occur to me to try to recite the skeptical view point as if it were some sort
of catechism. Doesn’t that seem at all presumptuous? I’m a skeptic and I have a different
take on things. I’d go so far as to suppose others do too. For one, I think the “trace gas” argument
is not a good one. The physics are correct as far as they go. Arguments based on what
you think are just “common sense,” are often anything but.

John Shotsky. Earth emits and absorbs huge amounts of carbon. Still, if you add to the amount of carbon int the atmosphere, then that amount of carbon in the atmosphere will increase.

Think of it like a pump that takes water from the bottom of a pond and puts it back through a fountain. It is obvious that the water level will remain constant (ignoring evaporation). Lets say the flow through the pump is 100gpm. It is accurate to say that 100gpm is added from the fountain. Now we start adding 5 gpm from a hose. Will the level of water rise or stay the same?

If you think that it will stay the same you are suffering from a logical error. This is the same error you are making when you say that nature adds 95% of the carbon to the atmosphere. Yes, sure, 95% of the water added to the pond comes from the fountain, but exactly the same amount is removed. The addition of the 5% from the hose can will raise the level of the pond. This should not be hard to understand.

When you apply this to the atmosphere, we have the equivalent of 100gpm being removed and added to the atmosphere. The level stays the same. We now introduce 5gpm from burning fossil fuels. The level rises. This is really very basic and there is no simple way to explain why the level would not rise with the added carbon.

You need a much more sophisticated argument to explain why the levels of CO2 would not rise. Logic dictates that it will rise.

“If you think that it will stay the same you are suffering from a logical error. [after adding 5 gpm from a hose]”

You misunderstand the nature of our pump removing CO2 from the atmosphere. It doesn’t work at constant speed, like a water pump. Instead, it works better at the higher CO2 concentration. Yes, the CO2 level will rise initially, but it will quickly reach a new equilibrium point and not rise after that.

I said you need a much more sophisticated argument than 95% is natural. That is just the argument that only 5% of the water comes from the hose. That argument is worthless.

The argument that a new equilibrium is reached is much better. If true it means that if we constantly add CO2 the level will continue to rise.

In fact, we know approximately what happens. About half the added CO2 is fairly quickly removed by the natural sinks and the other half stays in the atmosphere. That second half is very slowly removed.

It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference in the “level” of the pond water iffen you are pumping the water from the bottom of the pond up through a pipe to a fountain from where it flows back into the top of the pond …… or whether you are pumping the water from the bottom of the pond up through a hose from where it flows back into the top of the pond ……. or whether you are pumping pond water up through the pipe and the hose at the same time, ……… the water level in the pond will remain the same.

Course now, iffen you want to claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is providing “cosmic” water for the hose to be squirting into the pond …… then we will believe yu.

I will take a crack at answering your question for Dr. Spencer. Fossil fuels make it easier to produce food. If you don’t have to rely on your back to get water but can afford an electric pump then you can grow more of your own food or the food produced will be more plentiful and cheaper. If you use fossil fuels to produce cheaper fertilizer then you can grow more of your own food or the food produced will be more plentiful and cheaper. I could go on but I refer you to The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel (http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/) that documents all the many ways fossil fuels are a better solution for the world’s poor than more expensive fossil free energy.

Yes. You recognize the right thinking from statements like ‘100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by fossil fuels, and 150% of the warming since 1950 is caused by the AGW’. The IPCC statement ‘more than half’ is a lukewarmer position which is there just because denialists have so strong foothold in the IPCC.

“Perhaps the question should be why the balloon and sat were different 1995 to 2004.”

Another question is why the satellite profile in that chart (above) does not resemble the UAH or RSS satellite charts (below), which show 1998 as being hotter than any subsequent year but 2016. The profile of the satellite/model comparison above more closely resembles the bastardized surface temperature charts, which show a cool 1998, than it does the UAH or RSS satellite charts.

When recently asked this, Michael Mann replied “mostly due to difference in magnitude of 98 El Niño in satellites.” calling it the “El Nino fingerprint in satellite and surface datasets”.

He did not mention the Arctic, I may have also read, not sure, a claim the satellites do not cover the Arctic as well, and of course the surface dataset involves lots and lots of infilling in remote areas like the Arctic. So maybe El Nino triggered polar amplification? … or bad infilling? I am no expert

Hi Tobias ,i have also read that they cannot cross over the poles directly .iam not an ‘engineer’,but i believe it is due to increased gravity force over the poles, .&insufficient centripetal(/centifugal?) force .i believe most of them orbit in a more or less equatorial plane ,thus pictures of the poles are poorer resolution due to the angle of incidencenot being vertical to the earths surface .maybe someone else can be more preciseabout this .

I agree with Vox. A lukewarmer isn’t much different than a denier. However, I would also add that a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an alarmist either. He or she is sort of middle-of-the-road, you might say. It’s sort of stating the obvious, isn’t it? Fence-sitting is like that. That’s what fence-sitters do. They occupy the middle ground so that no matter what happens, they can always say (in retrospect) I sort of knew something like X was going to happen, where X is one of the 2 extreme (denier/alarmist in this case) positions. If something in the middle happens, then they look like absolute geniuses, and they can shout from the rooftops that I KNEW that X/2 was going to happen! Way to go Tillerson.

That is the new journalism which Vox is a creature of. Really this is just a return to journalism’s deep roots in politics. Each party or interest group had its own paper to disseminate its views and mobilize its adherents. Journalists were generally low paid hacks fir hire fond of free peanuts and cheap beer at the bar.

With the economic demise of the newspaper business model electronic media has recreated that earlier time. Anyone can be a journalist but they must have a wealthy benefactor with strong opinions behind them.

So Vox is fake news and really nothing more that a special interest broadsheet.

I think that you mean that Vox is a tabloid. Here is the definition of “tabloid” from dictionary.com
“noun
1.
a newspaper whose pages, usually five columns wide, are about one-half the size of a standard-sized newspaper page.
2.
a newspaper this size concentrating on sensational and lurid news, usually heavily illustrated.”

Journalists have always been primarily advocates for one position or another.
It’s just that for a few decades they managed to convince a majority of the people that they were honest purveyors of facts.

And also for generations there were two sides (at least) being published in rival media but, around the 60’s, the conservative side seems to have gone out of business. Now the internet reflects that old model and provides a healthy variety of opinions and facts.

How many of the talking heads of CNN are still alive; or have they all had heart attacks and died.

It sure beats watching “Comedy Central” for entertainment value. It’s not unlike watching a big Anaconda wrapped around an even bigger Caiman, trying to squeeze the life out of it, and not even thinking about how the hell it is going to eat it, if the croc doesn’t kill it first.

“And also for generations there were two sides (at least) being published in rival media but, around the 60’s, the conservative side seems to have gone out of business.”

Opposition to the Vietnam war is what galvanized the Liberals in the News Media to start pushing the Liberal/Socialist/Pacifist narrative. Before the war, they were fairly even-handed, but during and after the war, they went completely ideological, and haven’t stopped since.

This may be a bit off topic but what is the relevance of the average of 102 model runs? Shouldn’t the approach to modelling be to see who gets closest to reality and determine what they are doing that the others aren’t doing so the others can maybe get a little closer? Lumping the most inaccurate with the least inaccurate says nothing useful whatever. It’s like averaging all our telephone numbers or ages or whatever.

each model run has its own natural, somewhat random, variability which on this time scale (35 yrs or so) can significantly impact the trend. So, if you average all of the models together, you remove this element of the model forecasts and get at their overall, average warming trend…which, btw, is basically what is followed for the IPCC global warming predictions, and thus guidance for energy policy. If an individual model happens to get closer to the observations than all the other models, that’s mostly by chance…not because of skill.

Errors are somewhat random.
======
There is huge significance in knowing in the error term has a constant variance (white noise) which can be averaged out, or if the noise is pink or brown, which cannot be averaged out.

There is a large body of science that tells us the future is more likely pink noise and does not converge to zero the way that white noise does.

I can see that averaging many runs from a particular model may reveal the trends for that model. That should probably be done for each and every model to understand how they differ (if at all) from other models, if that isn’t already the case. However, assuming that there actually are differences in the assumptions and tuning parameters of the different models, so that the work isn’t entirely redundant, logically, there can only be one ‘best’ model among them all. To average the results of many poor models with that of the best one only insures that the average is going to be poorer than the best. I think that one needs to compare the poor models with the better models to see how they differ. That might provide some insight on how to improve the under-performing models. It might also provide some insight on what assumptions built in to the models are wrong.

If there are substantive differences in models, such as the Russian models, then while differences might be chance, it also might be that their assumptions show greater expertise in understanding the problem.

Roy,
It seems to me that the Lower Troposphere data from satellites record data from significantly more mass of the atmosphere at different elevations rather than a ground station which records at a single elevation. If indeed there is more mass, Satellites are recording a temperature representing a greater amount of energy which possibly changes in temperature more slowly than ground station recordings which can change significantly from day to night? Is this correct? Thanks for enlightenment.

Man contributes to global warming in three ways: emissions; land use changes; and, data “adjustment”. Nature contributes to global warming in multiple ways as well, not all well understood. Climate science is not currently capable of measuring the individual impacts of these anthropogenic and natural contributions, though the anthropogenic contribution of data “adjustment” might be the easiest to estimate.

I stopped reading anything from Vox about six months ago. There is value is reading opposing viewpoints, but Vox is so biased liberal and distorts the facts so much it is a waste of time to read. I’m sure they have their group of readers who want to live in their own bubbles that block out any other viewpoints that don’t agree with theirs, but that is not healthy. I would love it if Trump had his own 30 minute TV show each week to have debates about subjects like climate change, where everything presented is pre-vetted to make sure it is true, and let both sides have their say and a rebuttal period afterwards. The left wants to shut down the debate because they know the facts expose their alarmism as an attempt to keep the money flowing into climate change research, so now that the left is not in charge anymore I would like to see a meaningful public debate on global warming. That would be healthy for everyone.

They were famous for two things. (a) They could squeeze more music onto one side of a 12 inch LP record than anybody else (maybe 35-40 minutes) and (b) they believed you could make the most accurate recordings with just a single microphone paced in the proper place relative to the orchestra of opera stage.

Well they were also famous for a third reason. They made the lousiest records that were available at the time.

Seems like this new Vox is following in the footsteps of their incestors.

There were also Vox guitar amps. I had one for a while back in the day. I went back to Fender fast. Their compact organs had some good points, but once I got my B3, I never looked back. Not a great pedigree there either. :)

Depends on who’s President, and who’s the market for the CEO’s company. Green is trendy, and CAGW is an article of faith among many of the most sought marketing demographic, so that constrains what the CEO’s feel free to say. In this case, I think has more freedom as SOS than he had as CEO.

As CEO of Exxon he didn’t have to say a thing because he knew that as long as 20-30,000 delegates to climate conferences every 6 months he was making money for his company. He also knew that the hypocrites were not stopping their use of cars, boats, planes trains, computers and all materials made out of fossil fuels, let alone turn off the heat this time of the year

Mjw:
Nit picking I know, but there hasn’t been a Queen of England since 1707 when both England and Scotland abolished themselves as Sovereign States and united to become a new State called The United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Otherwise your comment is correct.

Climate hysteria has been ramped up since Trump won, for obvious reasons. These guys know they’re about to take the single biggest hit in 30 years of climate propaganda so are trying to get their retaliation in first however sadly for them it’ll be to no avail because the science simply doesn’t support their theory. Low sensitivity is the death of AGW alarmism.

Well, I already know this enemy, which is why I stopped reading at “Vox”. When 90% of a website’s output are “listicles”, time to get off the internet and take your dog for a walk.

Seriously, as bad as the traditional media is (remember how little they got right about Trump’s ascendancy), the “new” media is just many times worse (its just easier to “change the channel” to places like WUWT).

First clue is how many “senior editors” there are at places like Vox, and how many of these “senior editors” are still in their early and mid-twenties…

Caligula: They give them the title “senior editor” to (maybe, partially) mollify them for being paid on the same scale as garment workers in Bangladesh. This is the business model of internet journalism.

You mean that a progressive organization like Vox would expect people to work for almost free?

Doesn’t seem possible…

(Yeah, I worked co-op at a local newspaper – at least I realized that this was for my high school education, and at the end I at least received a credit. But hey, Vox probably has a kewl games room or something equally amazing that will keep them applying for those internships.)

This is just part of the “science is settled” “debate is over” decree over a decade ago.
Most scientists know that we continue to learn more about the climate system and adjust views/projections. However, a large group of non scientifically thinking people have made the incorrect assumption that the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and biosphere had/has quickly reached the same level of our understanding as that of gravity(9.8m/sxs).

It would be great if the physics of climate modeling and response of the biosphere could be represented as precisely, with mathematical equations as we can with the force of gravity.

Those of us who understand the tremendous range of uncertainty(that has been shrinking as we learn more) are skeptics……….of those that make assumptions of certainty.

With the Theory of Gravity, man does not have an understanding of how it works. But man has been able to quantify how it behaves with such precision that the planet Neptune was determined to exist before it was ever seen. We can also land a spacecraft on an asteroid.

With the Theory of Climate Change, the believers claim to know how it works (just ask and they’ll tell you). But man has been unable to quantify how it behaves. This leaves us with a theory that has no axioms, no postulates, no formulas, and nothing to reason with. IOW, it has no scientific value.

Not sure people realize how devastating the basic equilibrium model is to the IPCC temperature forecasts — when you throw on another blanket, the heat flow only changes for a very short time before the equilibrium between the new level of insulation and the new temperature is reached — and the CO2 effect is logarithmic anyway.

So every year that the temperature doesn’t immediately rocket to vast new heights suggests the eventual equilibrium state with additional CO2 is either closer than they guess to current temperatures, or (more likely) just not very significant next to other unrelated changes.

Like everything else in their (with my hat off to the Brits) “dodgy” pseudo-science, they argue it both ways. They try to blame us for the warming that has supposedly occurred since [fill in the blank], i.e., as if it occurs instantly. But when the amount is too small [even after all of their data manipulations] to cause alarm, then they argue that it’s because the system isn’t yet at “equilibrium” and more warming is yet to come [the old “doom is always just around the corner” meme to keep people in fear].

Sort of like the “The children won’t know what snow is” attempt to pull at our heartstrings, when we were having winters with comparatively little snow, which then shifted gears to “More snow is “consistent with” global warming,” when we started to experience winters with lots of snow.

Basically, their arguments constantly morph to fit the latest condition of [fill in the blank]. The skeptical among us see through this as a clear indicator that their claims are based on ignorance and shoddy pseudo science, and a clear indicator that we should not only stop listening to them, but not waste another nickel in support of their braying.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!” – Sir Walter Scott

talldave2. You agree that the new equilibrium temperature for each “blanket” is higher than before, yes? So you agree that the “blanket” will cause warming? I don’t see how that is in any way devastating to the IPCC forecasts.

Hivemind, have you not seen the graphs? Have you not heard that the last three years were each the hottest in the record? Why do you say there has been no warming? Is it that you reject data that doesn’t agree with you?

There are very few actual “deniers”, those who proclaim that CO2 has no impact on temperatures.
But it doesn’t suit the narrative of the alarmists to admit that.
In their thinking, they have to discredit anyone who doesn’t support their desire to drastically change everything.

I say CO2 has no impact on temperatures and defy you personally to show me the mathematical principle you claim upholds it. You had better have a lot of familiarity with the basic laws of physics because there’s gonna be a hole rip in the sky when you try to show that. Because the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of volumes of atmospheric air, specifically forbids CO2 changing the temperature of atmospheric mix.

The greatest single argument against CO2 warming the planet has been CO2 follows temperatures, not the other way round.

Why is this the case for greatest argument against CO2 warming the planet even remotely?

An affect can’t also be a cause at the same time because this would lead to uncontrollable warming with nothing to stop it. This has never been found during any time during the planets history going back billions of years. In fact if this scenario could had even happened then we, humans certainly would not be around today to even discuss this issue.

This is positive feedback with no way of stopping it, if it goes beyond the slight variation in the first place.

CAGW has been dead for many years because this scenario has never been remotely supported in any scientific form using observations and evidence. There is no mechanism that exists that can even remotely support it. Alarmism has come from this positive feedback being true, but the planet clearly refutes it.

‘OR’
Your above graphs are an average tropospheric and stratospheric temperature for the entire planet, not for the tropical tropospheric. i.e. Your graph has nothing to due with the tropical tropospheric paradox.

Tropospheric Tropospheric Paradox is:
The IPCC general circulation models (GCM) predicted that the most amount of warming on the planet should occur in the tropical region, in the troposphere at roughly 8km above the planet. This is not observed. There is almost no warming in the tropical region at 8km above the planet.

The high latitude stratosphere was cooled (not the tropical stratosphere has not cooled), much faster than the general circulation models, as the cause of the warming in the last 150 years was due changes in cloud cover, not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. I.e. You are pointing out another observational fact that disproves CAGW and in fact supports super low lukewarm global warming.

Less cloud cover (any region of the planet) results in less solar radiation reflected off into space which will of course cause the planet to warm and will of course also cause the stratosphere to cool as the ozone in the stratosphere is heated by the short wave solar radiation. The sunlight that is reflected off of clouds warms the stratosphere.

An observation that supports the assertion that the warming in the last 150 years is due to changes in cloud cover rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the latitudinal warming paradox.

The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 150 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.

The amount of CO2 gas forcing is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase.

As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere the potential for warming due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 should be the same at all latitudes.

This is not observed. The majority of the warming in the last 150 years has been in high latitude regions which is the same region that was warmed and then cooled in the paleo record with the warming and cooling cycles correlating to solar cycle changes.

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth
The atmospheric CO2 is slowly increasing with time [Keeling et al. (2004)]. The climate forcing according to the IPCC varies as ln (CO2) [IPCC (2001)] (The mathematical expression is given in section 4 below). The ΔT response would be expected to follow this function. A plot of ln (CO2) is found to be nearly linear in time over the interval 1979-2004. Thus ΔT from CO2 forcing should be nearly linear in time also.

The atmospheric CO2 is well mixed and shows a variation with latitude which is less than 4% from pole to pole [Earth System Research Laboratory. 2008]. Thus one would expect that the latitude variation of ΔT from CO2 forcing to be also small. It is noted that low variability of trends with latitude is a result in some coupled atmosphere-ocean models. For example, the zonal-mean profiles of atmospheric temperature changes in models subject to “20CEN” forcing (includes CO2 forcing) over 1979-1999 are discussed in Chap 5 of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program [Karl et al.2006]. The PCM model in Fig 5.7 shows little pole to pole variation in trends below altitudes corresponding to atmospheric pressures of 500hPa.

If the climate forcing were only from CO2 one would expect from property #2 a small variation with latitude. However, it is noted that NoExtropics is 2 times that of the global and 4 times that of the Tropics. Thus one concludes that the climate forcing in the NoExtropics includes more than CO2 forcing. These non-CO2 effects include: land use [Peilke et al. 2007]; industrialization [McKitrick and Michaels (2007), Kalnay and Cai (2003), DeLaat and Maurellis (2006)]; high natural variability, and daily nocturnal effects [Walters et al. (2007)].

An underlying temperature trend of 0.062±0.010ºK/decade was estimated from data in the tropical latitude band. Corrections to this trend value from solar and aerosols climate forcings are estimated to be a fraction of this value. The trend expected from CO2 climate forcing is 0.070g ºC/decade, where g is the gain due to any feedback. If the underlying trend is due to CO2 then g~1. Models giving values of g greater than 1 would need a negative climate forcing to partially cancel that from CO2. This negative forcing cannot be from aerosols.

These conclusions are contrary to the IPCC [2007] statement: “[M]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

As the amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long wave radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2, the greatest amount of warming should have occurred at the equator.

There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

William Astley,
You assert that the tropics behave differently from the rest of the globe, ie less troposphere warming and less stratosphere cooling.
I see no evidence for that in data. Once again, Ratpac A vs models but for the tropics only:

There are fewer stations in the tropics and noisier graphs, but the picture is similar to the global.
Possibly the stratospheric cooling is even more diverging from the models…

Thus, models are seemingly reacting to AGW by becoming more el Nino like, whereas real world become more la Nina like.
A La Nina-state doesn’t mean that the global warming is absent. It means that the tropical troposphere warming isn’t rising in altitude, it means stronger trade wind, stronger circulation, ocean overturning, and that the heat is transported poleward and deeper down into the oceans.

If there was no observational data to prove or disprove the IPCC general circulation models, then they could pretend that their incorrect general circulation models (GCM) may or may not be correct.

There are, however, at least a dozen independent observations that all support the assertion that the IPCC models are incorrect. There are roughly 100 different free variables in the climate models that have been ‘tuned’ to create CAGW.

We are not climate skeptics. A skeptic does not trust a result.

We are scientifically informed that CAGW is complete sham based on observations and analysis.

The general circulation models were purposely designed to create motivation for us to spend trillions and trillions of dollars on green scams that do not work and to send the developing countries ( via the corrupt UN who will of course skim the climate ‘action’ money off) $100 billion dollars a year ramping up to $2 Trillion dollars a year to be spend on green scams that also do not work.

There is a reason the cult of CAGW will never participate in a formal written debate to defend their very, very, very expensive fantasy. They would lose the debate.

The point of the Trump opportunity is to destroy the alarmist/Greenshirt climate movement…..for good. Tillerson’s lukewarmism is a problem. The IPCC needs to be withdrawn from and the propagandist climate infrastructure terminated from public funding.

If lukewarmism permits the alarmist academics to safe harbor and incubate there will only be more trouble when democrats regain some level of power. The goal should be to eradicate the ideology now and forever.

1. The earth is getting warmer
2. It’s all explained by rising atmospheric CO2
3. We humans are causing it because we burn fossil fuels
4. This will have catastrophic consequences for Earth and humanity.

Sorry, I just can’t buy in to all of that. I do believe that point 1 is correct, but I’ve only got about 150 years of thermometric data to look at, and not all of that is so good. I guess that makes me a Lukewarmer. Amazingly to me, there are prominent astronomers and astrophysicists that claim to believe the above narrative.

Griff tell me the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving the temperature of the global atmosphere and arriving at the same quantities science has established as the Standard Atmosphere of the planet or you’re a
craven,
posing,
fake.

Give me the formula.
Tell me what the factors in the equation stand for.
Tell us all the one of those factors which you claim establishes CO2 heating volumes of atmospheric air.

Be precise this is the simplest of question and answer tests about the simplest phase of matter.

“… “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.”
Bzzzzzztttt! Ooooh, sorry, that is incorrect. “Climate change” is Climatese for just about anything you want, as long as you can blame it on man. Lukewarmers only say that some (presumably measurable, even though it hasn’t been) of the warming last century was probably caused by man’s CO2. They don’t think the warming has been “bad”, but rather has been good, and no action of any kind needs to be taken.

The compound rate of CO2 increase has been in the range of 0.5% and lately 0,55% per year, less than the IPCC assumptions of 1 percent. So the time to double is about 125 years, not about 70 in many of the estimates.

MicroWarmer is a more accurate term. The warming that is actually observed is between 0 and 200 micro degrees Celcius per decade.
Also, I do believe in human caused warming – it is called the Urban Heat Island effect. It is beyond dispute that the area around Heathrow is hotter now than it was 100 years ago. However, I would argue that the primary cause is all the concrete runways and building and not the CO2 in aircraft exhaust.

Well, you know the BoM use reading from devices located at airports, Sydney and/or Bankstown, and these are the ones used in newscasts with “Hottest…since records began in the late 1800’s”. It’s very VERY misleading but you will be surprised how many fall for it.

Eric ==> Please, please, please: Attribute statements and sentiments to their actual originators — the person[s] who say or write the thing you are talking about.

“Vox” hasn’t said anything…. David Roberts, a writer on the Vox team, wrote something. He is not a Vox editor and does not speak for the Vox organization…he is, in effect, a paid columnist focusing on energy and Climate. He does not write journalistic news, he writes his opinions…which is all that ever appears at Vox. I say this to distinguish Vox from something like the New York Times, which is supposed to be doing news journalism and follow the Journalist Code of Ethics.

Unfortunately, the NY Times has abandoned journalism and resorted to rank name calling and libel on their front pages.

He famously wrote last year: “The obvious truth about global warming is this: barring miracles, humanity is in for some awful sh*t.”

Roberts no more speaks for Vox than I do for WUWT. His opinions are hos own, as my opinions are mine.

Vox published it in this case equals Vox “said” it.
A writer on the Vox team equals a Vox supported view.
Did Vox say the views in this article do not represent the views of Vox?
No.
Technically right but you protest too much, methinks

angech ==> It is a matter of journalism — not politics. A journalist correctly states his sources — naming names and affiliations. It is a simple matter to say, for instance, “David Roberts, a writer at Vox focusing on energy and Climate. wrote ….”

In the case of WUWT — ONLY articles and essays authored by Anthony Watts can be considered the official opinions of WUWT. Anthony allows contributors a lot of leeway in expressing their personal opinions and on occasion when those opinions might be 180º to his or when a contributor’s opinion is going to be viewed as very controversial, Anthony will append a notice to that effect. Anthony takes exception to other outlets that use the same false construct that Eric has used –> “WUWT says….” when it was really just some guest author.

Similarly, I would not want Anthony to be held responsible for the stuff I contribute here or for Judith Curry to be blamed for what I write there.

If other journalists want to write about something I wrote, either to complain or compliment, I prefer they say “Kip Hansen wrote, in a guest essay at WUWT, ….”

Truth be known, journalism has tipped off the pinnacle and is sliding fast to oblivion here in America. Here, at WUWT, we can and should do better.

If Mr. Worral wishes to be viewed as a journalist, then he can be journalistic practice. There are hacks enough in the MSM.

US media assault on Trump reaching new lows each day. NYT claims spike in subscriptions which is to say relentless attack strategy is also profitable for now. How to counter.

Not usually a big fan of boycotts but Trump supporters will be looking for an opportunity to respond. Not normally the type to riot in the streets. Cut the cord on HBO. Not a necessity, over priced, and working night and day against you. Simply call to your cable or satellite provider will do it.

I think the point is now rather “moot” More and more people are questioning CAGW.
Yes there are talking heads still babbling away about rising seas extreme heat but it exists only in their rhetoric and phonied up graphs and studies.

There is now talk of rationing of veggies in the UK and Europe due to guess what? Drought? Seas flooding and drowning the farmlands?
Ah no, snow storms,freezing weather, rain wind. Surprise!

All last year it was very cold in Spain. I checked the windows 10 weather app almost every day, and apart from 2 or 3 weeks in the summer, the temperature was some 2 to 3 degrees cooler than the listed average for that day in question. My swimming pool never got above 31 degrees, and I would usually expect it to reach about 35 degrees in late July/early August.

Last month was very wet and cold, and there were strong winds. 6 trees blew down in my garden, and dozens blew down on the estate where I live. Some neighbours have had retaining walls collapse, mainly due to the rain causing pressure to build up behind the wall and causing the wall to rupture and then collapse. My neighbour lost more than 100 roof tiles off his roof.

When I went shopping today, I noticed that the price of tomatoes was up about 80%. No obvious shortage, but very high prices. I expect that the price of other fresh produce is up, but did not notice.

First point: Sooner or later, the Democrats will be back in control of the federal government, at which time they can and will begin reversing the policies that Donald Trump enforced while he was president.

Second point: Mainstream climate scientists will not begin questioning the basic validity of their climate models until and unless a long period of statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more.

Face it people, the contentious debate over climate change isn’t going to go away any time soon, if it ever goes away at all.

I’ve seen no convincing evidence that a significant and long-lasting cooling phase is now approaching, one which could statistically reverse the forty-year trend of roughly +0.1 C per decade.

If the Democrats return to power in 2020 or 2024, the question they will face is whether or not to get truly serious about reducing America’s carbon emissions, something they were unwilling to do while they were in power.

If they do decide to get serious about it once they are back in control, they must put a stiff price on carbon and they must enact strong anti-carbon regulations which touch every nook and cranny of America’s economy.

If the Democrats aren’t willing to go that far, if and when their time comes again, then they will simply be pandering to the environmental community for votes, rather than acting in true accordance with their often-expressed fears for the fate of humanity.

“Second point: Mainstream climate scientists will not begin questioning the basic validity of their climate models until and unless a long period of statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more” We have not seen cooling for decades. it would not take 40 years to cause a re-appraisal by climate scientists.

Face it people, the contentious debate over climate change isn’t going to go away any time soon, if it ever goes away at all.

This is why it is essential to get to the bottom of the adjustments made to the temperature record. Trump needs to make the most of the time that he has been given.

It is actually essential that the best sited stations are identified (those with pristine data, no station moves, no encroachment of urbanisation or change of land use, best record practices etc) and then retrofit these with the same LIG thermometers that were used in the 1930s/early 1940s and then observe using the same practices as that station used in the 1930s/early 1940s. In this way there will be the same TOB, and there will be no need to make any adjustment whatsoever to raw data.

Just compare pristine data as was actually collected in the period 1933 to 1945 and compare it with temperature data collected today, using the same equipment, practice and procedures, over the course of the next few years.

In that way, we will quickly get a good impression as to how much warmer it is today than it was in the late 1930/early 1940s warm period.

PS. I am not suggesting there be an attempt to reconstruct a global temperature anomaly. Just look at a dozen or so of the very best stations in about a dozen different countries across the Northern Hemisphere. 100 stations all told should give us a good impression of what, if anything, has gone on. This would not be a time consuming task, although it may be difficult to persuade countries other than the US to join in.

“…statistically significant global cooling has occurred, possibly one lasting forty years or more.”

Didn’t Hansen say 15 years? We are well past 15 years and there has been no warming. The models based on CO2 = warming have been proven false. Warmists simply can’t comprehend that, so they attack anybody they can.

“…at which time they can and will begin reversing the policies that Donald Trump enforced while he was president.”

Um, no. Obama was never able to put his policies to Congress and get them turned into law. Trump simply needed to sign an executive order reversing Obama’s executive order. Trump has a Republican House and Senate. He will get his policies enacted in law. Any Democrat following Trump would have a much harder time reversing those laws than Trump.

Hivemind, from what I can personally observe of mainstream climate scientists, they will never retreat one iota from their position that their numerical models are useful tools in predicting future climate regimes and that today’s climate models are generally accurate over long time frames. This will remain their position regardless of where observed temperatures actually go over shorter time frames, up or down.

As for Trump as his unexpected victory in November, he and the Republicans in Congress are taking a high risk political gamble in monkeying with Obamacare and in reducing government spending in ways that reduce benefits to a variety of voting constituencies and economic interests dependent on government subsidies and government spending.

The winds of political change are fickle, and we have seen what can happen when the voting public turns against those politicians who promise big and don’t deliver on their promises. If the Democrats put their minds to it, a Democrat president and Congress who were elected in a voter backlash could quickly reverse anything that Trump and the Republicans did while they were in power.

As it concerns climate change and what they would do differently than Trump and the Republicans, the big question still remains, would the Democrats actually get serious about reducing America’s carbon emissions by putting a stiff price on carbon and by imposing a series of strong anti-carbon regulations against all sectors of the American economy, not just against the coal industry?

As for Trump as his unexpected victory in November, he and the Republicans in Congress are taking a high risk political gamble in monkeying with Obamacare and in reducing government spending in ways that reduce benefits to a variety of voting constituencies and economic interests dependent on government subsidies and government spending.

It seems that the one who took the high risk was Hillary – and she lost. Since its inception, all polls have showed Obamacare to be a loser. And reducing government spending to be a winner. The only risk is that the media and the left will vilify Trump for doing what he promised. But then they would do that in any event, so he has nothing to lose.

“does anyone seriously believe fossil fuels will be as significant a component of the energy mix in the year 2100, as they are in today’s world?”

I am willing to put a Benjamin on the fossil fuel side of the line. Every prediction of resource exhaustion so far has been wrong. Just a few years ago, pundits were saying that the world had reached peak oil, that henceforth production would go down, and the price of oil would never be less than $100/bbl again.

They were wrong. The sainted M. King. Hubbert, was wrong. He had said that US production of hydrocarbons would never be higher than it was in 1970s. He was wrong.

@Griff – Government never picks winners. It picks losers to support. The Market picks winners. So this “backwater” will allow the winners to win, and the losers will be selected by incompetent governments who have more money than brains, and less talent than that.

Solyndra should have shown you that no matter what your faith is, government cannot make a winner out of a loser.

I will bet a like sum against sogenannten “renewables”. The problems caused by the sun going down every day, the slow progression of the seasons, and the fickleness of the wind make them uneconomic, now and forever.

@Griff – Visit Spain and explain to those that sit huddled in blankets that Wind and Solar is the future. I have over 5 feet of snow here, my solar panel hasn’t produced anything for 5 days(try digging out a class solar panel with a snow shovel!), the ‘wind’ is at 2mph.

“A Saudi oil minister said recently ‘it wasn’t a shortage of stone which ended the stone age’ …”.
==============================
That quote dates from the 1973 Oil Crisis; ‘… Yamani [Saudi Arabian politician and Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources from 1962 to 1986] famously said in 1973: “The Stone Age didn’t end because we ran out of stones” …” (Wiki).

The same writer {David Roberts} in a different article on Vox {“Donald Trump is the sole reliable source of truth, says chair of House Science Committee”} writes:

“Tribal epistemology is inherently hostile to institutions that claim independent authority based on transpartisan norms and standards — the academy, science, and journalism, in particular. They see those institutions as tools of their enemies.”

Let that sink in. This writer is against a “tribal epistemology” . He thinks it is bad for everyone to agree on one dogma without regard of any other opinions. Tribal Epistemology is a bad thing. Apparently, except when it is his tribe.

He bleeds hypocrisy.

“While everybody is compelled to economize in this way to some extent, skepticism — in its many different varieties — offers a measure of practical defense… . We remember enough about what Science once was, or what market-honed economic signals were, to know that tribal epistemology is cognitive garbage. As we slide down the slope, increasingly, it’s the garbage heap in which we all live. — Outside In in “Tribal Epistemology” July 15, 2015

Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing, but doesn’t think it will be that bad and doesn’t think we know enough to take serious action anyway.

Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier — they do not support serious policy. But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.

At his hearing, Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism. Usually it works; very few US politicians scratch more than an inch deep on climate change, and lukewarmism has very nice-sounding inch-deep answers

When I first encountered the ‘lukewarm’ moniker, about the same time as hearing of ‘skydragons’, I was astounded at how closely aligned the lukewarmers were scientifically to warmists in terms of believing there is an actual real and positive ECS wrt CO2 that effected the temp rise post 1800’s.

Making this an odd statement: “Functionally, a lukewarmer isn’t much different than an outright denier”…

It seems to me the only major differences between a lukewarmist and a warmist is on the harmfulness of warmer temps and what if anything is to be done about it, differing mainly on degree of CO2 ‘warming’.

That’s where the trouble starts…

What’s happening here is part and parcel of the warmists’ long game: break skeptical unity and harden the public’s views on CO2 by continually promoting the false idea that humans had something to do with the 0.8C rise over 150+ years, and by constant reinforcement that recent high temps were the highest.

SOME lukewarmists are helping the warmists with both parts, their ‘CO2 warms’ messaging, and by tacitly accepting the rhetoric that the last few years were the ‘warmest evah’ (vs comparison to the 1930/40s).

Stop admitting to those lies! Stop admitting to Gavin’s manipulated temperature series, where he obliterated the higher-than-last year temps of the 1930’s and 40’s. 2015/16 were NOT record years by comparison.

Everything in the media is a lie! Didn’t the 2016 election serve to inform that these warmists will do anything to get their way including co-opting lukewarmists with their deceptive rhetoric?!

We must stand together and say in unison Gavin’s GISS is a lie and so is any warming attribution to CO2

Everyone knows in spite of Gavin’s distortions that temps cooled from the 1940’s until the late 1970s.

In other words it cooled for decades while CO2 rose steadily, and that one lone fact destroys any credibility in any lukewarmist or warmist argument that CO2 does anything positive wrt temperatures!

Making any and all CO2 ECS attribution patently bogus. ECS of CO2 is effectively zero.

Its damaging to continue lying to everyone that GHGs caused any part of 100% natural solar warming!

There was no GHG effect warming in the 20th century or at any other time, and I don’t say that because I doubt a GHG effect occurs or I wear a ‘skydragon’ badge or something. I say it because it’s true.

It’s true because the SUN’s higher activity during the 20th century caused the warming of the 20th century.

The SUN caused the climate to change as it warmed up the Earth by putting out higher radiation via higher sunspot activity, which was 65% higher for the 70 years from 1935-2004, when it averaged 108.5, versus the prior 70 years, when it averaged 65.8 annually, from 1865 to 1934.

Except for the now gone SC24 TSI peak driven ENSO, the ‘pause’ in temps is due to lower solar activity since 2004, ie, the sun wasn’t hot enough for another warm peak until the SC24 max occurred.

This year the media has so far mostly hidden the encroaching low solar activity driven cold weather, but they can’t hold back this truth forever. The epic cold and snow records this year will be repeated next.

If lukes won’t completely drop CO2 attribution, lukewarmists will be lumped with the warmists by the public, and be swept away together as the awareness of the real chilling effect of low solar activity spreads, and the deeper understanding that the ‘CO2 warms’ theory is but 100% pap. Do lukes want that?

Lukewarmism could lead science by overtly disengaging and refraining from any ‘CO2 warms’ discussion and by moving on to what’s really driving the weather and climate.

If it doesn’t, by the end of this solar minimum lukewarmism will be nearly as dead as warmism, for the same reasons: refusal to give up the ‘CO2 warms’ idea, and refusal to understand the how’s and why’s of 100% natural solar warming and cooling.

It seems to me the only major differences between a lukewarmist and a warmist is on the harmfulness of warmer temps and what if anything is to be done about it, differing mainly on degree of CO2 ‘warming’.

I think there are 2 major differences.

One is that they consider that Climate Sensitivity is lower than the IPCC suggest, ie., less than 2 and may be more in the region of 0.9 to 1.6; and/or

Second, they consider that warming is not as harmful as the usual/mainstream warmist suggests.

They often consider that natural variation has played a larger role in the late 20th century warming, hence why Climate Sensitivity is lower than the IPCC suggests and/or they consider that there may not have been as much warming as the land based thermometer data sets suggests due to c0rruption of the data sets particularly by UHI, site moves and station drop outs.

Of course, a lukewarmer is fully signed up to the principle of the science underpinning cAGW, just not its over blown nature.

My position is there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the “warming” that has been experienced recently was caused by burning fossil fuels. The recent warming is no different than the warming during the 1910-1940 period, which was not caused by CO2, and the cooling that took place from 1940-1975 happened while CO2 amounts were continually going higher. It’s all natural, and noone can prove differently. Bastardized surface temperature charts are not considered proof.

David Roberts from Vox: “Tillerson is a ‘close chum’ of President Putin.” What constitutes a close chum? Holidays together, regular golf games followed by lots of drinking at the bar, children do sleep overs, friends on Facebook? Any evidence?
Or is this another example of fake news?

Tillerson is smart. Instead of his company’s assets being seized by Putin like Shell Oil did after developing a promising oil field, Tillerson did a deal for drilling in the Russian Arctic with Exxon money while pairing it with Russian investment on the U.S. side in the Gulf of Mexico. Such facts never get to Progressive readers though. They only hear chum and move on.

Any good business man knows he has to follow the laws and the edicts of the country where he does business. He does not have to believe the laws or rules are overall good. The key to good business is to have success using the rules imposed upon it. Also if there is the public image on a given issue, it does no good to tell the public they are badly miss informed even if it is obvious. I would not blame Rex (now SOS) for his past business deals as long as he was making money for his company and not breaking the law. Personal beliefs cannot get in the way of good business unless it involves ethics.
The new SOS knows the new rules and will enforce them or resign if they violate his integrity.

Trump says he never even met Putin and doesn’t know whether he will get along with him or not.

In the current atmosphere, it is better to assume that anything that is detrimental to Trump should be viewed as fake news until proven differently. More than likely it is fake news. The MSM has lost control of their senses and are searching for anything they can find or make up that will do Trump harm. Trump is right, the MSM is the Opposition Party. Don’t expect to get the truth out of them, expect just the opposite.

“NOAA estimates atmospheric CO2 is rising at around 3ppm / year. Assuming this rate of growth continues until the end of the century, by 2100 CO2 levels will peak at around 680ppm”
From a paper om peak carbon: Abstract:
“Climate projections are based on emission scenarios. The emission scenarios used by the IPCC and by mainstream climate scientists are largely derived from the predicted demand for fossil fuels, and in our view take insufficient consideration of the constrained emissions that are likely due to the depletion of these fuels. This paper, by contrast, takes a supply-side view of CO2 emission, and generates two supply-driven emission scenarios based on a comprehensive investigation of likely long-term pathways of fossil fuel production drawn from peer-reviewed literature published since 2000. The potential rapid increases in the supply of the non-conventional fossil fuels are also investigated. Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed 610 ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2.6 °C compared to pre-industrial level even if there is a significant increase in the production of non-conventional fossil fuels. Our results indicate therefore that the IPCC’s climate projections overestimate the upper-bound of climate change”
The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: A supply-side analysis
Jianliang Wanga, , , Lianyong Fenga, , Xu Tanga, , Yongmei Bentleyb, , Mikael Höökc,

Rex will not set policy for Trump. When President Trump follows through on his promises CO2 is a dead issue. President Trump has been checking his bucket list daily (some are screaming to much too fast) so stand by. The only thing I hate at this time is all the ‘could/if/maybe/might/should be’ crap from the MSM and #NeverTrump people.
NOTE: the EPA pick hasn’t been voted on yet!

I think we have to wait for this post to be voted in, before Trump acts as he has intimated that he will do so. I hope, and expect, to see the gloves coming off once this post is in place. It is essential to the draining of the swamp.

I thought is was a clear expression of grief although it doesn’t seem to fall neatly within any of the five common phases. Maybe anger is closest. My hope is that science is able to reassert itself in the next generation.

If there is one trend I would like to see less off it is the mind reading and projection so common in these outbursts “Tillerson tried to get away with lukewarmism.” Fancy pretending to know what is in somebody’s mind and then speak for them. Humbug.

It should be made clear that not only is carbon dioxide already an all-natural compound not a pollutant, but that there is no solid evidence that it warms the Earth or causes any natural temperature variations.

CO2 always follows temperature variations historically.

The IPCC CO2 theory calls for much more warming than what has naturally occurred. CO2 models fail.

The IPCC CO2 theory calls for more extreme events to occur as both CO2 and temperatures increase, but such events, tornadoes and hurricanes, were at low to lower levels overall during the past decade even as temps rose. Reality was completely opposite to IPCC CO2 theory wrt to extreme events. Fail.

The IPCC CO2 theory cannot predict ENSO events using CO2. Fail.

The warmists are in denial of the fact that their CO2 theory is a failure.

The present politics of this predicament are owed to the ‘artist formerly known as Barry’, who with his Sec of States went around the world telling every single foreign government leadership that humans were responsible for warming the earth and causing extreme events, that the West was at fault, that their countries would suffer because of us and our energy use, so we in the West would have to pay them climate reparations via the Paris agreement. Those lies were a travesty – a real stain on the US govt credibility, scientifically and politically.

The Trump administration needs to stand firm and disavow those lies by repudiating the Paris agreement.

Tillerson should be reminded that scientists from leading countries, the Chinese, the Brits, the Rooskies, the Norwegians, and so on all have solar scientists who have recently published peer-reviewed papers describing the effect of solar warming and cooling on the oceans, atmosphere, and cryosphere.

The message ought to be that the climate varies naturally as always, that ideas of carbon dioxide pollution and footprints are unfounded illusions, that carbon based financial control systems are therefore illogical and immoral constructs, and the US is no longer playing those games in internal or foreign policy.

The US ought to be the leader in recognizing and preparing for the effects on food and energy production and prices, at least short-term, from low solar activity through Trump’s first term.

Crop losses from snow, ice and cold ramped up in 2016, and will continue through Trump’s first term.

Energy usage in the NH will be at record levels and increasing every year through Trump’s first term.

Every country is faced with this – it’s the new reality, thanks to the sun. No amount of emissions policy will change the weather or climate.

It would be insane to restrict the energy needed to survive the upcoming harsher winters.

In Greenland, the MWP, which extended into the 14th century, was warmer than today. For all we know that might have been the position almost right across the Northern Hemisphere, and possibly even the Southern Hemisphere (since we have all but no data on the Southern Hemisphere).

Whilst I am not saying that it is the reason, it is conceivable that the warmth of the MWP is one of the reasons why CO2 is at the levels we see today.

richard verney, do you have global data instead of a single geographical data point ? Radiocarbon dating of tree stumps uncovered by melting glaciers do not show it being warmer in the Minoan, Roman or Medieval times. In fact you need to go back more than 5000 years to find warmer times than now.

Martin, how does one determine the segment of time represented by tree stumps that have been recently uncovered by melting glaciers?

Having studied glaciers, I can testify that all glaciers move, and the force is enough to deeply scour bedrock so I can’t see how any tree stumps would be spared–they’d easily be uprooted and carried away.

If they’re just part of the glacial detritus, where did they come from and how long have they been dead? And wouldn’t constant saturation with water (the very glacial stuff you maintain is inferior to these stumps when it comes to temperature estimation) sufficiently change the chemistry of the wood to alter any dating and render it useless?

Bob, you say: “CO2 always follows temperature variations historically.” So how do you explain the PAUSE in the past three decades when temperature has been flat and CO2 has risen?

CO2 follows temperature with the peaks and troughs shown below in the graph. This occurs in short time scales and much longer time scales.

Temperatures have been flat with tiny increases or decreases in CO2 because as shown, it only follows overall changes mainly ocean ENSO related and therefore theses are the cause. The tiny change in adding CO2 ppm has no influence on the global temperature trend.

Hence, temperatures only respond to causes not effects that the latter CO2 gases are shown to be.

Therefore rising CO2 that follows temperature didn’t increase global temperature because the effect has no affect on the cause. Whereas the cause has an influence on the effect shown in the graph at short time scales.

richard verney, your graph of the GISP2 ice core data does not include data from about 1850 until today. Besides the missing data, trying to use a single geographical data point to infer global temps is bogus

RockyRoad, the tree stumps are at the edge of the glaciers. Obviously they were not removed by the advancing glaciers. Secondly, there are more than one tree stump, and radiocarbon dating place all of them in the same time frame.

Martin Clark on February 4, 2017 at 6:37 pm in reply to Matt G on February 4, 2017 at 6:21 pm

The graph as such is correct:

Bogus is imho rather the idea of choosing such a short period to determine which one preceeds the other. We know nothing about CO2’s inerty, nore even about where its emissions are stored in the atmosphere.

I remember to have read last year an interesting paper about the satellite-based detection of high CO2 transfers from the tropspheric levels in the Tropics toward stratospheric levels in the Antarctic regions.

Bindidon and Matt G, yes your graphics are “bogus” because they are not showing CO2 levels. They are showing “changes” (the derivative) and we all know that taking the derivative removes the trend. This shows you the difference: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/offset:-300/plot/esrl-co2/derivative
.
.
So when you argue that “CO2 follows temperature” you cannot use the derivative. Matt G, your comparison chart is comparing the derivative of CO2 with absolute temp (via anomalies) . Anomalies are not “changes” they are deviations from the average, hence you are doing the apples to oranges thing.

From the article: “Judging from what we learned at his confirmation hearing on January 11, Tillerson is a “lukewarmer,” someone who acknowledges that the climate is changing,”

Is there anyone who claims the climate is *not* changing? Noone I know, since everyone knows the climate has been changing since the beginning of time. So I guess that would make everyone a lukewarmer, according to the “logic” above.

From the article: ” But politically, lukewarmism is a much smarter, more soothing stance, because it dodges the uncomfortable “denier” label.”

Funny, “denier” doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all. If it means I’m hanging on to the truth, it doesn’t bother me a bit.

I deny that there has been any proof presented that humans are causing any changes in how the atmosphere behaves, and would defy anyone to provide such evidence. I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that no evidence will be produced in response, because there is no evidence. Someone is in denial, but it’s not me.

They can’t stand the fact that maybe some degree of “lukewarmism” is the most accurate stance–far more accurate than their running-through-the-weeds screaming-the-sky-is-falling predictions that only gets worse by ignoring the lack of mathematical precision inherent in their models.

When mathematical variability is an order of magnitude higher than natural variation there’s only one thing to say: Ha! What a con!

“This makes Tillerson’s views on climate change a matter of great interest. Most countries in the world send their minister of the environment (the equivalent of our EPA administrator) to represent them at international climate talks. The US is different — we send our minister of international affairs, i.e., our secretary of state.”

Two things that strike me:

A) Why is the leftist not screaming for us to be just like the rest of the world and send the EPA head to these talks?

B) Does he really think that going to these international climate parties is the best use of the Secretary of State’s time? Or my tax dollars?

It should be said that the headlined chart comparing the model runs to satellite and balloon datasets was included in a Climate, Etc. post by Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenburger. It’s not Judith Curry’s chart and I don’t know to what extent she would agree with it. But it seems well-conceived, and compares apples to apples. These guys are pretty responsible with their materials.

Kip Hansen’s comment applies. We should be careful with attribution comments.

BTW, I’m curious about balloon datasets and how representative they might be. I understand they use similar instrumentation and that procedures are standardized. What about geographical coverage? Would someone knowledgeable about this subject explain this.

If Tillerson is a lukewarmer, he has plenty of company among the 195 nations that signed the Paris climate deal because it’s strictly voluntary. This means that they don’t consider whatever climate change that’s occurring to be particularly threatening; therefore, they won’t take any drastic measures to combat it. And this attitude is prevalent worldwide. Sure, a majority of people may concede the climate is changing, but how many of them will make serious lifestyle changes to do their part to bring it under control? So there is likely to be a solid majority of lukewarmers out there, and critics of them need to recognize the fact.

The Bailey, the desired but indefensible position, is that we are all doomed unless gigantic human sacrifices are made, and the high priests of Gaia get to choose who to sacrifice. Standard Aztec type demon worship..

The Motte, the defensible position, is that human activity might cause temperatures to rise by an amount so small as to be difficult to notice.

When the Bailey comes under attack, climate priests retreat to the Motte and glare at the enemy until the enemy goes away, and then they reoccupy the Bailey.

A warmunist is a believer in CO2 causing warming, and water vapor doubling or tripling that warming … until there is a climate catastrophe.

A lukewarmer is usually a believer in CO2 causing warming, but doubts (or doesn’t believe) any additional positive feedback warming from water vapor, so if there was a climate catastrophe, it would be far in the future.

Both warmunists and lukewarmers are stupid people because they are both unable to admit “I don’t know what the future climate will be” (which is the most accurate summary of climate science, as of 2016).

The warmunists are deliberately stupid about science, but with their goal of gaining more political power, perhaps they are politically smart (not honest, but there can be financial gains for them — ask Al Bore).
.
The lukewarmers are inadvertently stupid, because in the absence of scientific knowledge about what causes climate change, they also refuse to say “I don’t know what the future climate will be”.

With only extremely rough knowledge of what causes climate change, 40 years of wrong computer game predictions, and ice cores showing temperature leads CO2 levels, the lukewarmers still believe CO2 is a ‘climate controller’ … with no historical evidence or scientific proof (outside of a laboratory experiment) their belief is true.